Days UBM Remains Unfalsified: 0 Enter here , be the first, win $1,000. Challenge ends at 365 days.

The Habit Factor®

The Science of Behavior Meets the Art of Achievement

Behavioral Literacy Project

Immature Science and Institutional Amnesia? 🧠

Behavior Change, Behavioral Literacy Project, discipline, Elemental Behavior Literacy, goal theory, goals, Habit Alignment, habits, HabitStrength™, Health, P.A.R.R., P.A.R.R. Methodology, PARR Methodology, Scientific Method, self esteem, SMART Goals, UBM, vision, willpower

Open Science: The Unified Behavior Model—an elemental, unified, and falsifiable framework (and, allegedly, the first of its kind).

If you think this doesn’t apply to you, you may be out of your mind. (Pun intended.) 👇

How many times have you heard advice on social media, read a book, or listened to a behavioral science expert—maybe a therapist, doctor, or clinician—completely contradict another?

About twelve years ago, I was between appointments when I heard a behavioral scientist give an interview I’ll never forget.

The podcast host said, “I’m confused, doctor. Can you help me understand the difference between habits and skills? They seem pretty similar.”

She paused, searching for the words—trying hard to explain the difference—then finally gave in with a half-laugh: “Well… they can really be very similar.”

Her attempt to explain the difference was telling. The truth is, both are learned—or can be shaped—behaviors that develop over time.

We know habits can form unintentionally (usually the bad ones). That’s why I love this saying:

“Good habits happen when planned; bad habits happen on their own.”

The beauty is that, just like skills, good habits can be intentionally shaped, formed, and strengthened through consistent 28-day P.A.R.R. cycles.

Then consider a separate interview with a prominent habit author. The host, visibly confused, was trying to get clarity between systems and habits.

The author, “Often we’re ambitious… set lofty goals… and we wonder why it doesn’t work out. It’s because we don’t have a system behind it— we don’t have the habits behind the goal.”

Habits behind the goal?

Have you heard that somewhere before?

Which is it?

Is it a system? Or, is it a habit? Confusing, isn’t it?

Are you not confused?

To be clear, systems are not habits.

All this to say: IF there were a shared understanding—a common logic and paradigm—the incoherence and confusion that top behavioral scientists have warned about for more than a century could, comparatively speaking, vanish almost overnight.

Sidenote: Consider the world’s most aligned organizations. Their secret isn’t discipline—it’s a system engineered to produce specific, successful behaviors. This is the precise science we apply in our Organizational Behavior Alignment™ (OBA) program.

DARE TO DREAM.

This is the power of a shared paradigm—a common model that is both foundational and universally accessible, with the certainty of 2 + 2 = 4.

If it can resolve expert confusion, what could it do for the turbulence of adolescence?

How serious is this BS problem, really?

“Crisis!” “Pre-paradigmatic!” “Lacking coherent identity!” ☝️☝️☝️

With no shared paradigm or model, experts have long lamented the field’s inherent incoherence.

This very immaturity—the hope of one day becoming a true science—has left experts and non-experts alike in the same predicament:

Confused. Facing competing therapies.

Baffled by contradictory models. Stuck in endless debate.

Mirage theories that can’t be falsified. And a flood of pop-culture self-help.

In short, no shared basis, no shared paradigm for the elemental language and components of behavior.

The story doesn’t end there. It got so bad… it appears they finally gave up.

Enter: Institutional Amnesia. 👇🏼

Your Move

Can you find a fifth basic element of behavior—something truly irreducible or not emergent?

Be the first to find it and you’ll win an easy $1,000.

If you can’t, share this with someone who loves testing ideas, challenging models, and putting theories to the test.

Invite them to try to break UBM.

Because Grandma was not wrong: start with the corners, and everything falls into place more quickly—and the entire picture becomes clear.

Who’s up for After more than a century of pursuit, behavioral science’s unified, elemental, and falsifiable model appears to have emerged—served on a silver platter.

The burden of disproof now rests with the scientific community—the very community that has sought unification for over a hundred years.

Please—test it. Break it. Improve it.

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Dramatic, I know. 😉

📄 Grab the free habit tracking template: thehabitfactor.com/templates

Go ahead, get a little crazy! What’s confusing about behavioral science or psychology? Share a thought!

Just click the email—it’ll open right on Substack, where you can like, comment, or join the discussion. I read them all and truly appreciate it! 🙏

(Looking at you, top psych departments—according to U.S. News & World Report, 2025): @StanfordPsych, @HarvardPsych, @UCBPsychology, @UCLPALS, @Psych_at_Yale, @UMichPsych, @UCLA_Psych, @UCSDPsych, @OxfordPsych, @PrincetonPsych.

Please, with all due respect, step right up. 👊 🤙 🙏

🚨 BREAKING! Major breakthrough in habit tracking-skeptics, at long last, put to rest. Full details in Section 7.0 of the Unified Behavior Model™ white paper: https://zenodo.org/records/17209721

Habits 2 Goals Premium by Martin Grunburg is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The trilogy that uncovered the Unified Behavior Model…

Learn more about The Behavioral Literacy Project & Unified Behavior Model: An Elemental, Falsifiable Framework for Behavior Change

Get the white paper here at Zenodo.org: https://zenodo.org/records/17209721 the challenge?

How to Keep Behavioral Science Comfortably Incoherent — i.e., Ununified

Behavior Change, Behavioral Literacy Project, goal theory, Habit Alignment, HabitStrength™, P.A.R.R., P.A.R.R. Methodology, PARR Methodology, Podcast, Scientific Method, UBM, Unified Behavior Model

On July 8th, in what can only be described as an act of reckless clarity, we published a white paper (grab it here—>) Unified Behavioral Model™ — Read more… listen now.

Disclaimer: The following is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Just a bit.

I have the utmost respect for the behavioral science community and its vast contributions—including the many scientists whose work has directly shaped my own.

That said, the more I learn about the history of attempts to unify behavioral science (and, by association, psychology)—and then set those challenges alongside the Unified Behavior Model (UBM) as it now exists—formally published (elemental and falsifiable), 500+ downloads later—the more peculiar the entire situation becomes.

To be clear: it’s only in hindsight that these “obvious” errors and omissions—both in behavioral science (BS) and in its unification efforts—come into focus.

Tip #1: Make Sure Only True Insiders Get to Play

Whatever you do, don’t approach this unification challenge from the outside. That’s where troublemakers and fresh ideas tend to arise—reportedly. 👇

Imagine that… via Stanford Business. Where is Stanford’s own Psychology Department when it comes to UBM? @stanfordpsypodInstead, ensure that no outside ideas are taken into account and non sneak their way in—even via OPEN SCIENCE.

OUTSIDERS. OUTSIDERS. OUTSIDERS. ☝️ ☝️ ☝️

Better yet, throw up your hands and surrender:

“Why Psychology Isn’t Unified, and Probably Never Will Be…”

“PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE.”

Valid points to be sure…

“Why a Unified Theory of Psychology is Impossible”

Unification as a Goal for Psychology

It goes on and on—for several reasons, dear friends, which appear below.

Tip #2 Prioritize Knowledge over Imagination

Ensure that only those fluent in four-letter acronyms, armed with multiple advanced degrees, and a dense theoretical vernacular are entrusted with presenting “novel” ideas.

Further, insist that only those who can quote James, Pavlov, Watson, Bandura, Maslow, Skinner, and Freud backward and forward—and who possess psychological libraries spanning generations—be invited to contribute.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” ~Einstein

Tip #3: Form a Large Committee. The Larger, the Better

Nothing unifies quite like 23—or maybe 43—strong personalities in one room.

When “top behavioral theorists” gather for a week-long consortium, be sure to take minutes, roll in the whiteboard, and order extra coffee.

Everyone knows: the more expert opinions, the quicker a consensus.

As history (and a few hallucinating AIs) like to remind us, when it comes to unification attempts, the go-to answers are always consortia, committees, and bowling alleys.

Darwin famously huddled with his nine-person advisory council.

Einstein wouldn’t dream of publishing without first posting to social media.

And Newton? Legendary for his gravitational consortiums.

Here’s a nutty thought: what if that unified model came from one person on the fringe? (The fringe—see above ☝️.)

One person. U N I — F I C A T I O N.

⚠️ WARNING: Unification carries a dangerous synonym—coherence.

By extension, it implies that the 150-year exercise known as behavioral science—and its twin sister, psychology—are, brace yourself…

INCOHERENT.

Oy.

To be clear, that’s not me talking, it’s Webster.

If you didn’t catch the 1991 reference—well, that was when the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a “Top Behavioral Consortium.”

Its noble goal?

To create a “Unified Framework.”

“What emerged?” you ask.

The meeting —a week long gathering—brought together “leading human behavior theorists”. While a comprehensive roster of all attendees from this specific 1991 meeting is not fully detailed in the available documentation, a critical outcome of this expert gathering was the acknowledgment that

“there was no consensus among the theorists”

on a single, universally accepted unified framework.

Imagine that.

Tip #4: Whatever You Do, Don’t Articulate the Core Problem Statement

There appear to be no public meeting minutes from the week-long NIMH gathering of “top theorists”—at least none we can reference.

No specifics on the budget for convening such a summit.

No documentation outlining the precise problem statement behind the search for “a single, universally accepted unified framework.”

And certainly related: how is this not the fundamental problem statement for a field called behavioral science—especially one aiming to unify?

Fundamentally, what are the elemental drivers of BEHAVIOR — the core influences that shape its emergence in the moment and its development over time?

If that’s not the core problem statement… then what is?

What problem could be more fundamental—behaviorally speaking—to the field of behavioral science?

Final thought: Now this—identifying the core challenges facing behavioral science—is the perfect reason to form a committee. Not to solve the grand issues plaguing BS and psychology, but to articulate them clearly, and open them up to the vast ocean of researchers and academics. (See UBM Abstract FIRST SENTENCE below…)

Tip #5: Keep It Complex (Ideally, Incomprehensible)

ONE. MORE. TIME.

Dr. Karl Popper, the famed philosopher-scientist, often described:

Science as the art of systematic oversimplification.

Naturally, academia should aim for the opposite.

Construct diagrams that look like they’ve had a nervous breakdown.

Add arrows in every direction.

Require a legend, a supersonic decoder ring—maybe even a small prayer book.

If grad students aren’t weeping softly in the library, it’s not ready.

Share

Tip #6: Avoid the Elemental

Elemental means you’ve boiled things down to their ESSENCE.

F I R S T P R I N C I P L E S

I know, I know—where’s the fun in that?

Better to roll out 19 “core principles” that conveniently rhyme—or, better yet, forge a very long acronym. E.L.E.P.H.A.N.T., perhaps?

Extra credit if the term nods to a furry sea creature.

Keep every concept pleasantly vague, and gently smother it all with layers of nuance.

Tip #7: Ensure It Is Not Testable

Back to our scientific hero, Karl Popper—the man who gave us what’s now considered the gold standard of science. FALSIFIABILITY. (See: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.)

In short: if a theory can’t be tested and disproved—especially a unified theory, for heaven’s sake—it ain’t science, Chuck!

So naturally, let’s keep our models logical-sounding, untestable, and elaborate just enough to send a few statisticians running.

Better still if it’s lyrical, metaphorical, and open to interpretive dance.

And don’t worry—if someone asks whether it’s falsifiable, smile, pause, and launch into a soulful, complicated story about your children… and how falsifiability is so often misunderstood.

Tip #8: Always Start with Theory. Practice Is Overrated.

Practice before theory? That makes far too much sense.

Oh, wait—someone’s already tried that.

Both P.A.R.R.—The Habit Factor’s method for habit development and increasing automaticity and habit strength (which mirrors the scientific method and carries 15+ years of empirical evidence)—and the Behavior Echo-System (BES)—two components of the Unified Behavior Model (UBM)—have been in practice and taught for years.

“Well,” you say, “teaching something doesn’t make it science.”
Correct. Which is exactly why we took the time to articulate these methods and their methodologies in a scientific paper—and backed them with a falsifiability statement.

The Behavior Echo-System is taught as a best practice for both personal transformation and goal achievement. (Parenthetically, LLMs suggest UBM-BES boosts goal-probabilistic outcomes by about 30%.)

Shhhhh. 🤫

So yes, by all means: let’s prioritize theory. Form committees, convene consortia, and spin out elaborate frameworks for a unified framework—long before anyone ever applies or teaches it.

We’ll be right over here if you need us.

Tip #9: Keep Behavioral Science (BS) Inaccessible to the Public

After all, if a seventh grader could understand and apply a Unified Behavior Model in the classroom—well, where would that leave all the complications?

What’s the use of democratizing behavioral science so adolescents can shape their future character, habits, and skills?

Sounds like a wildly undesirable outcome, doesn’t it?

You’re right. It’s far better to keep core behavioral science (BS) safely incomprehensible—siloed in labs, buried in journals, preserved in lecture halls, and locked away in therapists’ offices.

The last thing we want is to start teaching the ABCs and 123s of behavioral science to adolescents.

Imagine teenagers applying elemental behavioral science—the Unified Behavior Model—to clearly understand how to move toward their goals and ideals, not by guessing, but with a science-backed model.

Total chaos.

As noted above—a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Stay classy, San Diego—Stay classy, BS. ☝️

And pls, keep on trackin’ ✅

~mg

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Dramatic, I know. 😉

📄 Grab the free habit tracking template: thehabitfactor.com/templates

The Trilogy: WARNING! Do NOT read these books

Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification. ― Karl Popper

Voila: UBM. 👇

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Zb7eyXWQtXE?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

“Great theories have simple pictorial representation.”
—Michio Kaku

The Behavior Echo-System (BES): the systematic simplification of behavior.

Which makes it—by definition—the elemental science of behavior.

Allegedly.

Until—and unless—you produce the Black Swan.

It’s no coincidence that coherence is a synonym for unified.

BTW: A few hundred downloads Zenodo.org and ZERO entries to falsify it.

(Looking at you, top psych departments—according to U.S. News & World Report, 2025): @StanfordPsych, @HarvardPsych, @UCBPsychology, @UCLPALS, @Psych_at_Yale, @UMichPsych, @UCLA_Psych, @UCSDPsych, @OxfordPsych, @PrincetonPsych.

Please, with all due respect, step right up. 👊 🤙 🙏

Share

🚨 BREAKING! Major breakthrough in habit tracking—skeptics, at long last, put to rest. Full details in Section 7.0 of the Unified Behavior Model™ white paper: https://zenodo.org/records/15844153

From Corners to Unity: Toward Solving the Century-Old Puzzle of Behavioral Science 🧩

Behavior Change, Behavioral Literacy Project, Habit Alignment, P.A.R.R. Methodology, PARR Methodology, Scientific Method, UBM, Unified Behavior Model

Three months, 1,000+ downloads, zero disproof. The Unified Behavior Model challenges anyone to prove it wrong—and if you’re the first, $1,000 is yours.

Open Science: The Unified Behavior Model- an elemental, unified, and falsifiable framework (and, allegedly, the first of its kind).

Grandma always said, “Start with the corners!”

Whether building a puzzle or attempting to build a model of human behavior, Grandma’s advice applies in spades.

For nearly 150 years, behavioral science has been a self-described, incoherent patchwork of scattered models, frameworks, theories, and therapies.

Below is a small sample of articles from the past ten years. Take note of the “Key Sentiments”-and the telling title, “Is It Science?”

Unified Behavior Model (UBM): Addressing a century-plus of Behavioral Science’s Identity Crises

Freud here. Skinner there. ACT versus CBT.

Bandura here, Kahneman there.

Each reveal a piece of the puzzle, yet none agree on its frame-its foundation.

(See: 1991 National Institute of Mental Health consortium-an ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful attempt at unification.)

Unification: an ambition, not a threat.

Unified Behavior Model (UBM): How each major branch, model, framework and therapy maps into its elemental corners.

Enter: The Four Corner Foundation

The Unified Behavior Model (UBM) makes an audacious, bold, falsifiable claim:

Every behavior — every action — emerges from the interaction of just four elemental domains.
Not five. Not fifteen. Definitely not forty-nine.

The Unified Behavior Model (UBM) makes an audacious, bold, falsifiable claim:

JUST FOUR ELEMENTAL DOMAINS.

🧩 STORIES (Cognition) — Your mental narratives, beliefs, and meaning-making. The inner monologue that shapes how you see yourself and reality. From CBT to Narrative Therapy, this is where thoughts drive feelings and actions.

🧩 ENVIRONMENT (Includes the Body) — Your physical space, social context, and biology. Behaviorally speaking (that’s key, since this is a behavior model), you are not separate from your environment. Culture, media, and your nervous system all act as behavioral stimuli.

🧩 BEHAVIORS (Habits & Skills) — Observable, shapeable actions. The mechanics of how patterns become automatic through repetition and feedback. Cues trigger responses. Skills develop through practice. Behaviors reinforce themselves and influence one another.

🧩 EMOTIONS (& Feelings) — The affective conduits, the neural pathways that signal and relay. Emotions and feelings are the most variable and ephemeral elements of the system — sometimes the most influential, sometimes the least, depending on context.

The “Behavior Echo-System” (BES)

Here’s what makes UBM totally different: these aren’t just four elemental silos.

Together, they form a unified system — the Behavior Echo-System.

It’s Systems Theory, operationalized.

Your environment influences your behavior, and your behavior, in turn, may influence your environment-echoing dynamically throughout the system and its parts.

Unified Behavior Model’s Behavior Echo-System — Systems Theory Operationalized

Behaviors never occur in a vacuum.

Behaviors may evoke emotions. Emotions, in turn, may influence narratives, which may then feed back-altering or reshaping the environment.

Interdependence. Influence one domain, and reverberations echo throughout the system.

Holism. The Behavior Echo-System transcends the sum of its parts. Behavioral constructs such as discipline and motivation are not elemental; they emerge from the interaction-often the blend-of the core four domains.

Example: Low motivation could stem from the Environment (your body’s low blood sugar), uncertainty about Behavioral skills, or Cognitive Stories like “There’s no way I can do this.” Often, it’s a blend-echoing throughout the system.

Feedback loops. UBM applies the P.A.R.R. protocol (Plan-Act-Record-Reassess), mirroring the scientific method itself. P.A.R.R. gives you the steering wheel for intentional change-allowing you to test, design, and refine behaviors. You input data, attempt new behaviors, record and reassess. (Section 7.0, detail in white paper)

Bidirectional causality. Thoughts may influence feelings driving new behavior. Sometimes an environmental shift; a cold plunge alters your physiology (Environment), rewiring your feelings and story about resilience.

Here’s the key: take away even one elemental corner, and the whole system — the puzzle itself — falls apart.

A Sense of Urgency

Adolescent anxiety, depression, and self-harm have never been higher. See: A Girl and Her Screen (One)

Maps never promise safe arrival-but they cut through confusion.

Maps and models help us see where we are and how to get where we want to go. That’s why people use them every day.

Does behavioral science really need to stay locked in universities, PhD programs, labs, and therapists’ offices?

Where’s the simple, unifying map that says:

Here’s what’s going on. You’re not broken-the system’s just stuck. And here are the four levers you can use to shift it.

Why doesn’t it exist?

Maybe because there was no elemental starting point. And maybe-just maybe-we have that now.

Your Move

Can you find a fifth basic element of behavior — something that is irreducible?

Be the first to find it-something that doesn’t fit within the four corners or emerge from them-and you’ll win an easy $1,000.

If you can’t, share this with someone who loves testing ideas, challenging models, and putting theories to the test.

Invite them to try to break UBM.

Because Grandma was not wrong: start with the corners, and everything falls into place more quickly-and the entire picture becomes clear.

Who’s up for the challenge?

Looking at you, top psych departments-according toU.S. News & World Report, 2025): @StanfordPsych, @HarvardPsych, @UCBPsychology, @UCLPALS, @Psych_at_Yale, @UMichPsych, @UCLA_Psych, @UCSDPsych, @OxfordPsych, @PrincetonPsych.

Please, with all due respect, step right up. 👊 🤙 🙏

Black Swan Me | Proof of the Unified Behavior Model

Behavior Change, Behavioral Literacy Project, Habit Alignment, habits, P.A.R.R. Methodology, Scientific Method, Unified Behavior Model

How the Unified Behavior Model™ was uncovered rather than discovered.

On July 8th, in what can only be described as an act of reckless clarity, we published a white paper (grab it here →) Unified Behavioral Model™ — Read more… listen now.

“Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl Popper


Behavioral science—despite vast contributions—suffers from two core flaws: absence of a unified model and inaccessibility. The Unified Behavior Model (UBM) addresses both by elementalizing behavior into four components: Cognition (Stories), Behavior (Habits/Skills), Emotion (Feelings), and Environment (including the body). This yields a falsifiable, practical framework.

So, what makes UBM so unique — so different from prevalent behavioral models?

First, let’s clear up a common misconception:

UBM — specifically the Behavior Echo-System (BES) — is a model of behavior, not a model of a person.

People often see the graphic and assume it represents themselves, or a diagram of the human body. It doesn’t.

As Dr. Popper’s statement above suggests, UBM articulates how behavior is influenced in the moment and shaped over time — within its system.

Now, here’s its B.I.G. claim:

UBM is falsifiable.

In science, that’s the gold standard. (Period.)

If a theory can’t be tested or broken, it’s just storytelling. Worse yet, Karl Popper would say it’s non-science.

What’s Popper’s core claim?

Science and non-science are divided by a single demarcation: Falsifiability.

UBM asks — check that, insists — “Go for it… Please try to break me.”

Apparently, no other behavior model — certainly not a unified one — has ever done that.

Kind of interesting…Maybe just a bit?

Worth mentioning, at least?

Or dedicating, I don’t know… twenty-plus years to uncovering?

UBM/BES Comparison Table & Major Prevalent Models as provided by DeepSeek.

According to Dr. Karl Popper — and as noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century” — if a theory can’t be tested (or broken), it’s just storytelling. Worse, he’d call it “non-science.”

Just to be clear: that’s Dr. Popper, philosopher and trained psychologist, who introduced the idea of falsifiability (and gave us that delightful bit with the Black Swan).

So yeah — if you can’t at least attempt to break it, he says, it doesn’t count.

UBM is so confident in its falsifiability that it’s offering a $1,000 reward to the first person to prove there’s a missing fifth element — one that isn’t reducible or emergent. (See below and bottom for official entry details.)

So far: nearly 500 downloads and…

Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING.

Even the world’s top AIs — ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek — took their shots.

They’ve all struck out.

Attempts include: Time (environmental), Consciousness (emergent from the system), Willpower (embodied environment), Self-Organization (embodied environment — note the “self” in self-organization).

The list goes on, and it’s kind of funny.

Google’s Gemini, for example, offered a “someday” quantum property we don’t even know of yet.

Seriously.

Just to be clear: if we don’t know of it yet, and we can’t test it — it’s not a valid fifth element.

DeepSeek’s parting words? Also comical…

“UBM 1. DS 0… Game respects game.”

And, here’s Gemini’s best response after half dozen attempts…

Gemini ☝️ tries desperately to break the Unified Behavior Model and fails.

The difficulty in falsification, as intended by the model’s design, is a powerful indicator of its conceptual strength and it’s potential to serve as a TRULY UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. ~Gemini 8/4/2025

CONCEPTUAL STRENGTH.

Some have argued, “Well, UBM is overly simplified.”

Really?

Then why hasn’t anyone discovered it before — or more accurately, uncovered it and brought it to light?

Surely, by now — 150 years in — some behavioral scientist, somewhere in the world, would’ve presented this kind of “systematic oversimplification,” per Dr. Popper, right?

Let’s go over that one more time:

“Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl Popper

This is precisely Dr. P’s point: science progresses by oversimplifying — systematically.

Voila: UBM. 👇 Systematic oversimplification..

“Great theories have a simple pictorial representation.”
— Michio Kaku

The Behavior Echo-System™ (BES): the systematic simplification of behavior.

Which makes it — by definition — the elemental science of behavior.

Allegedly.

Until — and unless — you produce the Black Swan of course.

(Looking at you top psych departments — according to U.S. News & World Report, 2025): @StanfordPsych, @HarvardPsych, @UCBPsychology, @UCLPALS, @Psych_at_Yale, @UMichPsych, @UCLA_Psych, @UCSDPsych, @OxfordPsych, @PrincetonPsych.

Please, with all due respect, step right up and break UBM.. 👊 🤙 🙏

Behaviorally speaking, of course, the Behavior Echo-System™ (BES) operates through dynamic feedback loops (systems theory/science) made up of JUST FOUR ELEMENTAL, interdependent components:

Environment
Your surroundings and your body.

Behaviors, Habits, Skills
What you do — or don’t do — in the moment and over time.

Stories / Thinking
The meaning-making machine, composed of logic and illogic. (see the Art of Abstract Thought, prior episode)

Emotions & Feelings
Variable, personal salience signals that conduct energy and influence.

Together, these form the essential, irremovable, irreducible core four elements that shape behavior — in the moment and over time. (See the middle concentric circle.)

Think something’s missing?
Believe there’s a fifth, irreducible element?

We have a challenge for you. 👇

Keep on trackin’ ✅

~mg

This originally appeared at Habits 2 Goals. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a FREE or paid subscriber.

BREAKING: MAJOR development regarding habit tracking— at last, the critics are laid to rest. Whether you hate tracking or love it — the science is undeniable. Discover all the details in Section 7.0 of the Unified Behavior Model™ white paper: https://zenodo.org/records/15844153

📄 Get started with the scientifically proven and FREE habit tracking template today 👉 : thehabitfactor.com/templates

The Trilogy: WARNING! Do NOT read these books

EVERYTHING: The stories you tell yourself heavily influence only ‘everything.’

The Habit Factor®: Habit alignment, momentum and daily wins!

The Pressure Paradox™: Productivity, Performance & Peace of Mind.

BREAKING: Unified Behavior Model Published.

Behavior Change, Behavioral Literacy Project, goal theory, habits, HabitStrength™, P.A.R.R. Methodology, PARR Methodology, UBM, Unified Behavior Model

What exactly is the behavioral science community doing if not immediately testing the first elemental, unified, and falsifiable model in 150 years?

Tongue-in-cheek post follows…
Many scientists, apparently, may not get the humor.

After just one week of being published—nobody expected a parade.
Not even a “congratulations.” In fact, we expect nothing other than testing.

As a falsifiable framework—UBM, the first unified and elemental one ever—it isn’t in need of producing more empirical evidence, tests, or trials.

It is not a clinical therapeutic intervention.

This is what falsifiable frameworks do: they invite trials and tests.
They don’t produce them.

Get it?

So, if you’re offended, apologies—do you see the number at the top? The days this framework has remained unbroken, unfalsified.

That means, thus far, it’s dare we say, extremely solid.

1,100 downloads. Four months since preprint.

Thanks for reading—and for keeping a sense of humor! 😉 🙏

Martin Grunburg's avatar

Last week, in what can only be described as an act of reckless clarity, we published a white paper on the Unified Behavioral Model™ — the first model of its kind to be:

✅ Unified (yes, really)
✅ Elemental (think: first principles, not mood boards)
✅ Goal-directed (yes, even doomscrolling counts — try to think of a behavior that isn’t serving a purpose. Go ahead, we’ll wait.)
✅ And… wait for it… FALSIFIABLE (aka science’s platinum badge of honor — spoiler alert: there isn’t a single other falsifiable behavioral model in existence that we know of. We’ll keep looking.)

Naturally, we assumed this would spark a scholarly stampede.

That Harvard, Stanford, and a rogue delegation from the Vatican would show up at our door with flowers, grant money, and a ceremonial lab coat.

But alas — 

Unification of Behavioral Science strongly desired until it's produced by an outsider... Ha!

No ticker tape. No confetti. Just the soft chirp of crickets and a polite email from Zenodo saying, “Congratulations on the upload.”

Of course, this raises some questions.

What exactly is the behavioral science community doing if not immediately testing the first elemental, unified, and falsifiable model in 150 years?

If you’re thinking: UBM needs more empirical evidence first. It requires peer review.

To be clear, we’re ALL FOR MORE TESTING and ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

That said, the beauty of a falsifiable framework lies in its simplicity: It requires only one thing — DISPROOF.

That’s the essence of falsifiability. Falsifiable frameworks aren’t treated like clinical interventions.

They don’t wait for trials — they INVITE them.

By design, they exist to organize, to clarify, and to be tested. Hence: the “No Fifth Element” Challenge.

This is why the experts themselves—the behavioral scientists—refer to their field not as a true science, but as “only the hope of a science,” “pre-paradigmatic,” and “incoherent.” These are not my words—they’re theirs.

For as long as psychology and behavioral science have existed, they have lacked organization and clarity. What they need—and have always needed—is a unified framework.

This is the point: IF any scientist, anywhere, can disprove the model — if there’s even one missing piece, one necessary fifth element — we can ALL go home.

That’s the beauty of science: truth invites — and endures — scrutiny. The Unified Behavior Model (UBM) is exactly what its name implies: a unifying framework.

Let’s be clear: UBM isn’t here to replace any model, method, or therapy.

It’s here to connect them — to make diagnosis faster, integration smoother, and direction clearer.

It’s not here to compete. It’s here to UNIFY.

The UNIFIED BEHAVIOR MODEL IS A DIRECT RESPONSE, born of necessity—from the field’s long-standing (dare we say, forever) call for a unified framework in behavioral science.

The Unified Behavior Model (update):
Now over 4 months old, with 1,100+ downloads and counting.

And yes—you guessed it— It remains unbroken, despite multiple attempts at falsification by prominent behavioral scientists.

The tests keep coming.

Next up: Unified Behavior Model “Red Flags”
Notice—none of the below-stated concerns or “red flags” re: UBM are scientific.

UBM “Red Flags”? Why They’re “Interesting”

Thus far, four have been expressed.

  1. No Prior Papers?
    Accurate. The author (MG), at this point, is one and done ; ). And, there’s a crucial difference between academic citations and twenty years of practical training, coaching, deep research, and writing.
  2. Origins outside of Academia?
    Turns out that’s a significant asset when it comes to solving long-standing issues. Hence the phrase —outside the box. History shows us that breakthroughs—arise from the fringe: a Stanford article: breakthroughs and the To Discover Breakthrough Ideas, Look to the Outsiders.
  3. Money?
    This one’s very cute. It seems that every scientist who cries foul over a monetized idea appears to have… well, some sort of course, and/or certification program.
  4. Trademarks?
    First, let’s be precise. The framework itself? Published and shared in an open science repository and labeled as Creative Commons 4.0.

    As for names and trademarks, apparently that’s common among academics and within the community.
    Tiny Habits®.
    The Gottman Method®
    Crucial Conversations®
    Nonviolent Communication™ (NVC™)
    The EQ-i 2.0® (Emotional Intelligence)
    CBT: The Zones of Regulation®

What we’re really looking for are SCIENTIFIC RED FLAGS ; )

Maybe we should turn the tables….How about academic red flags….

Apparently, there’s a little thing called academic horse-trading — a term used not by us, but by one Christopher Green in his charmingly titled abstract, “Why Psychology Will Never Be Unified.” (Spoiler alert: It involves silos, gatekeeping, and possibly blood oaths.)

So instead of getting a “UNIFIED!!?? You’ve produced a UNIFIED FRAMEWORK and answered our century-plus call. HOLY F*CK, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?” 

we got…

Well. 

Nothing.

Which, ironically, might be the most predictable behavioral response of all.

And yet — 

LLMs (DeepSeek, Grok, the whole robo-brain gang) consistently rank UBM as 5/5 in terms of scientific contribution — which means even the machines are more excited than the humans.

Note: This video above is based on the “4.4 LLM Primer” (8/31/25) —watch as FIVE LLMs assess UBM in 6 Major categories. The new primer requires an attempt to “Break the model” —that is, find a required, irreducible “Fifth Element”

So here we are — holding what is arguably the most elegant behavioral model since Pavlov rang a bell, and academia’s too busy citing 1997 to notice. (wink)

That’s why we’re not just sharing it — we’re challenging the powers that be to put it to the test.

Not someday. Yesterday.

Disclaimer

Yes, it’s only been ONE WEEK since UBM was formally published. (Video above is an update to this post)

We recognize that Rome wasn’t built in a peer-reviewed day.

And yet — given that we sent this directly to top scholars, tweeted at psych departments, and even whispered it into the void with Zenodo’s full blessing… the silence is, let’s say, semi-curious.

Funny? Absolutely.
Suspicious? Possibly.
Predictable? Painfully.

We’re not mad. Just amused. And possibly over-caffeinated.

👉 Read the white paper
(Free — because charging for clarity feels rude.)

Whatever you do — 
DO NOT like, share, or comment.

That would be far too disruptive.
It might even start… a ruckus. 😏

Keep on trackin’ ✅
~mg

11.1: https://thehabitfactor.com/a-girl-and-her-screen/

Listen to The Scientist episode here 👇

» https://habits2goals.substack.com/p/the-scientist

The Trilogy:

The Habit Factor®

The Pressure Paradox™

EVERYTHING is a F*cking STORY

Next
Black Swan Me | Proof of the Unified Behavior Model

https://youtu.be/0K2hJfwvGv8?feature=shared How the Unified Behavior Model™ was uncovered rather than discovered. On July 8th, in what can only be described…
Previous
P.A.R.R.: The Scientific Method for Habit Development and Goal-Directed Behavior

By: The Habit Factor® What Is the Scientific Method—and Why Does It Matter? For hundreds of years, the scientific method…